I am embarrassed on behalf of Haw Creek for the vitriolic reactions that the proposed zoning variance has elicited from some of my neighbors. Unfortunately, some residents responded to a proposal for new housing with fearmongering, delay tactics and a lack of concern for Asheville as a whole. The behavior of Haw Creek residents at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 20 this year was disrespectful of the tremendous efforts of city staff and board members to hear out residents’ concerns. Letters printed in opposition to this project in this paper and others have often struck an alarmist or sarcastic tone instead of adding productively to the conversation.
To decide whether or not to approve this zoning variance, the city has undertaken a careful, slow, widely publicized negotiation between tens of interested parties. Yet it has been met in this paper with calls to other neighborhoods to “protect their families, homes and quality of life” [“The Failure of the Conditional Zoning Process,” Aug. 14, Xpress]. It has been called out of alignment with the city’s comprehensive plan even as city staff present the detailed reasons this project meets the city’s priority to build more housing.
Let me be totally frank: Asheville families are not under threat from new housing; they are under threat from a lack of housing. That’s why we have a process for zoning variances in the first place!
There are fantastic ways to make your voice heard in Asheville, and I want to commend the Haw Creek Community Association (HCCA) for working with the city and developer to the fullest extent possible. HCCA was thoughtful about gathering input, proactive in generating solutions, transparent in their communications and ultimately supportive of the negotiated outcome. HCCA made its voice heard in a way that improved the discussion and the project.
City Council members, Planning and Zoning Board members and city staff are also to be commended. They made a huge effort to take the concerns of the neighborhood seriously. Watch the City Council meeting where the zoning variance was approved to see Council member Maggie Ullman discuss the research she put into wildfire safety after hearing the concerns of Haw Creek residents. HCCA has now requested funds to produce an evacuation plan — surely a massive benefit to the community that came through this participation.
I am not here to say there are no downsides to new construction. Mitigating these downsides is the purpose of the zoning variance process. That is why it is so important to engage with constructive speech and specific requirements rather than engaging in alarmist rhetoric. Real concerns like wildfire safety were thoughtfully considered by City Council.
Overall, I’m happy with how our city government responded to this zoning variance, and I applaud most of the interested parties for being so productive. I hope the next time we have this conversation as a city, we can raise the level of discourse.
When new people move into Asheville, it does not threaten Asheville; it makes Asheville stronger. Telling people that what they have is under threat is a great way to get negative reactions but not a great way to solve any problems the city faces. And the city faces a steep housing shortage, which we are addressing the only way we can: by densifying our neighborhoods. If you feel left behind by this process, it’s time for you to step up and engage with it. HCCA has shown you the model.
— Joel Shuman
Asheville
Well, maybe. But if residents don’t push back or raise concerns, local government rarely gets involved.
I would agree as I believe the author of the letter does as well. However, they’re encouraging push back and raising concerns in a constructive manner. The “all or nothing” or “my way or the highway” propositions are rarely successful.
By all means, we can certainly disagree and do so robustly, but let’s be civil about it, reasonable in our expectations, and respectfully work towards the best possible outcome. No one gets everything they want in a compromise but at the end of day you’re still neighbors.
Exactly. But we still have a few developers attempting to push through some really awful projects such as mountain villages at the end of narrow dead end residential streets without sidewalks. They hire legal teams to try to wiggle out of conditional zoning and meetings with neighbors. I’m all for building vertical spaces above Ingles and Steinmart along existing traffic corridors with bike lanes…
People who protest housing are the classic self-involved old money NIMBY folks who like to say (in private of course) I’ve got mine, too bad for you. They make me sick.
Your perception may be askew.
Do you really believe that no one ever has the right to object to the size and scope and impacts of any housing development anywhere ever? That’s a really dangerous and myopic anti democratic and ignorant notion.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when you serve up one in a condescending and one-sided manner, it doesn’t benefit anyone.
I am all for re-zoning for density, but I am skeptical of the idea that more housing means working people in Asheville will be able to afford them. With the borderline illegal inflation of the housing market allegedly caused by companies like RealPage, and both corporate and mom-and-pop investors buying up every available property as soon as it hits the market only to turn around and rent it out, it seems like supply is not really the issue. I’d like to see tax legislation that might make home buying easier for first-time buyers and more financially burdensome for career investors.